5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Subotica, Serbia.
6.  On 8 August 2005 the applicant was arrested by the Subotica police and brought to their station concerning an alleged burglary. In their report the police stated that the applicant, together with a number of others, had been caught after the act and that several objects used for the commission of the alleged crime had been seized. The applicant gave a statement to the officers. According to the minutes of his interrogation, the applicant confessed to one count of attempted burglary, and then signed the document using his nickname, notwithstanding a prior reference in the same minutes noting that he was “illiterate”. The minutes further stated that, pursuant to Article 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 60 below), the applicant had read them, at his own request, and had had no objections.
7.  On 17 August 2005, at around 4.00 a.m. according to his own estimate, the Subotica police again brought the applicant, together with several others, to their premises in order to question him about a criminal offence. There was no prior attempt to serve him with the summons. The Government maintained that the reason for this had been the danger that the applicant might otherwise have absconded or tampered with the evidence.
8.  The applicant maintained that his lawyer, V.J.Đ., had been informed of this arrest by his relatives and had hence managed to arrive in time to briefly talk to him before the interrogation. The applicant apparently told V.J.Đ. that he had already been physically abused by the police, who had attempted to obtain his confession. V.J.Đ. himself stated that the applicant had seemed “mentally broken” and had been walking with a limp.
9.  The subsequent police interrogation began at 1.35 p.m. and ended by 1.40 p.m., at which point the applicant was released. The Municipal Public Prosecutor (Opštinski javni tužilac) had been informed of the hearing at 8.30 a.m., but did not attend it. In the course of the interrogation the applicant was asked to give a statement concerning “a burglary of a store in Veliki Radanovac”. The applicant, however, declined to do so and noted that he had retained V.J.Đ. as his legal counsel. The minutes of the interrogation further stated that the applicant was “illiterate”, and bore his fingerprint instead of a signature. With reference to Article 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the minutes, lastly, noted that the applicant had read them, at his own request, and had had no objections. The minutes were also signed by V.J.Đ.
10.  The applicant maintained that he had been provided with no food whilst in police custody.
11.  On 18 August 2005, at around 4.00 a.m. according to the applicant’s own estimate, he was brought, yet again, by the Subotica police to their premises, without having been previously summoned. The Government maintained that, just like before, the reason for this had been the danger that the applicant might otherwise have absconded or tampered with the evidence.
12.  The applicant claimed that he had once again been beaten by the officers who had attempted to obtain his confession. The applicant apparently asked that V.J.Đ. be informed of his arrest, but the police ignored this demand. Instead, the applicant was provided with a legal aid lawyer, N.D., who, it is claimed, appeared only briefly to sign the minutes of the interrogation and left shortly thereafter.
13.  The minutes in question contained: (i) an indication that the applicant was being charged with numerous counts of burglary; (ii) his detailed confession of how he had committed those offences; (iii) his statement to the effect that he did not want to retain V.J.Đ. as his legal counsel; and (iv) his declaration that he had given his statement in the absence of “any physical or mental coercion”.
14. The minutes further noted the questions posed by N.D., including whether the applicant was trying to protect anyone with his confession. The Municipal Public Prosecutor had been informed of the hearing on 17 August 2005 at 12.20 p.m., but did not attend it. Finally, the minutes stated that the applicant was “illiterate”, but then went on to note, with reference to Article 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that he had read them, at his own request, and had had no objections. The applicant did not sign the minutes, having instead left his fingerprint. The interrogation lasted between 2.40 p.m. and 3.40 p.m., following which the applicant was released.
15.  The applicant maintained that he had been provided with no food whilst in the police station.
16.  On 24 August 2005, at around 5.15 a.m. according to his own estimate or at 9.00 a.m. according to official records, the police arrested the applicant once more, but, this time, ordered his detention for a period of 48 hours. The applicant received no prior summons. He was, however, provided with a detention order, which stated that he had been deprived of his liberty on suspicion of having committed numerous burglaries. The order relied on a number of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 57 below), but did not contain any substantiation as to the factual circumstances warranting the applicant’s detention or his prosecution.
17.  On the same day the police issued a report supplementing the criminal charges against the applicant, as well as another three defendants, concerning thirteen separate counts of burglary. The report included, inter alia, a description of the crimes and referred to the evidence obtained.
18.  On the same day V.J.Đ. lodged an appeal on behalf of the applicant. Therein, inter alia, he maintained that the impugned detention order had been merely a template devoid of any meaningful reasoning. V.J.Đ. further informed the investigating judge that, following her son’s detention, the applicant’s mother had been contacted by a lawyer who had offered his services. In particular, the lawyer had said that he knew that the applicant had already retained V.J.Đ. but explained that it would be better for him to change legal counsel as this would facilitate his release from police custody.
19.  On the same day the investigating judge of the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Subotica rejected the above appeal. She recalled, inter alia, that on 18 August 2005 the applicant had been heard in the presence of his legal aid lawyer, that the prosecuting authorities had obtained several witness statements incriminating the applicant, and that the applicant had both been convicted of crimes in the past and had “continued committing crimes” thereafter. The judge lastly specified that there were six separate criminal cases pending concurrently against the applicant before the Municipal Court in Subotica, indicating that he had “committed” several property-related crimes in a short period of time. This, in turn, meant that, if released, the applicant was likely to re-offend and/or abscond.
20.  Lastly, on the same day the applicant was examined by the on-duty doctor of the District Prison (Okružni zatvor) in Subotica, but “no disease was established, i.e. he was [deemed] healthy”. The Government provided a certificate to this effect issued by the prison doctor on 12 January 2011, as well as copies of the relevant medical protocol dated 24 August 2005. The said protocol, however, was mostly illegible.
21.  On 25 August 2005 the Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office in Subotica requested that a preliminary judicial investigation (istraga) be instituted against the applicant in respect of numerous counts of burglary, and proposed that his detention be extended.
22.  On the same day the investigating judge instituted the proceedings sought and extended the applicant’s detention for an additional month. Before so doing, she invited the applicant to give a statement in the presence of V.J.Đ. and the Deputy Public Prosecutor and informed him about the evidence put forth by the prosecution. The applicant, however, refused to respond to the charges in question. He referred, instead, to the abuse suffered at the hands of the police, as well as the alleged breach of his procedural rights up to that point. In the reasoning as regards the applicant’s continued detention, inter alia, the judge stated that the applicant could, if released, re-offend, abscond or unduly influence the witnesses.
23.  On 26 August 2005 the applicant’s continued detention was confirmed by the three-judge panel of the Municipal Court, which fully accepted the reasoning of the investigating judge.
24.  On 30 August 2005 the Municipal Court’s three-judge panel confirmed the investigating judge’s decision to institute a preliminary judicial investigation.
25.  In the following weeks the investigating judge heard many witnesses, including witnesses Đ.D. and P.D. On 1 September 2005 the former stated that his head had been slammed against the wall by the police in order to elicit his statement, whilst the latter recounted that he too had been threatened by the police with a baseball bat and for the same purpose.
26.  On 16 September 2005 the Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office indicted (optužilo) the applicant for the crimes in question.
27.  On 4 October 2005 V.J.Đ. filed a formal objection against the indictment (podneo prigovor protiv optužnice), but on 6 October 2005 the three-judge panel of the Municipal Court rejected this objection.
28.  On 21 November 2005 V.J.Đ. informed the Municipal Court that the applicant had recently been photographed by the police in prison. He requested clarification as to what had been the legal basis for this exercise, and expressed concern that the photograph could be used to unlawfully secure his client’s identification in the course of future identity parades. The Government submitted that the applicant had been photographed only once, on 25 August 2005, upon admission to the prison, and, further, that this photograph had been used solely for the purpose of supplementing his prison identity papers (lični list).
29.  On 7 December 2005 V.J.Đ. wrote again to the Municipal Court, stating that on 26 August 2005, 18 November 2005 and 6 December 2005 he had visited the applicant in prison, and that each time prison staff had been present during their conversations. Indeed, they had been close enough to be able to both hear and see everything. V.J.Đ. requested an explanation as to why the applicant had not been entitled to unsupervised communication with his counsel. As it subsequently transpired, on 26 August 2005 the Municipal Court had issued a standing permit (stalna dozvola) to V.J.Đ., authorising him to visit the applicant in prison. The said permit stated that visits could last up to 30 minutes and take place under the supervision, i.e. in the presence, of an official to be designated by the prison governor. The Government maintained that the supervision in question meant visual observation only, not listening to the conversations between the applicant and his lawyer.
30.  Between 9 December 2005 and 21 March 2006 four hearings were held or adjourned before the Municipal Court.
31.  In the presence of the Deputy Public Prosecutor, the applicant described the abuse which he had suffered whilst in police custody, and gave a physical description of the officer who had engaged in his ill-treatment on 17 August 2005. The applicant added that on this day he had sustained injuries to his legs and back, and had also been temporarily unable to hear on his left ear. Upon release the applicant went to a local hospital but was denied treatment because he had forgotten to bring his medical insurance card. When the applicant returned with this card, however, the hospital staff told him “to come back tomorrow”. On 18 August 2005, having been beaten by the officers once again, the applicant asked for V.J.Đ. to be informed of his arrest, but officer D.M. refused to do so. Officer M.V. was also present. The applicant explained that he had, ultimately, been coerced into signing a statement already prepared by the police without his participation. At one point, N.D., his police-appointed lawyer, appeared in the interrogation room merely in order to stamp and sign the same statement. As regards the charges against him, the applicant specifically denied some of them whilst in respect of others he refused to answer questions.
32.  Officer D.M. stated that the minutes of 17 and 18 August 2005 were accurate, that he had not personally seen the applicant being abused or even heard anything to that effect. The officer also had no recollection as to whether the applicant had been duly summoned to appear before the police, but recalled that the applicant had constantly moved around, which was why he had been difficult to find.
33.  Officer M.V. noted that he had not taken part in the interrogation of 17 August 2005, and had only a vague recollection of the interrogation which had taken place the next day. In particular, he remembered that the applicant had said that he did not want to retain V.J.Đ. as his counsel since the latter had always advised him to give no statements to the police and he had already had enough of the repeated arrests and interrogations. M.V. had no information to offer as to whether the applicant had been duly summoned to appear before the police, but recalled that the applicant’s police-appointed lawyer had been present throughout the interrogation. Finally, M.V. affirmed that the applicant’s statement was accurately recorded in the minutes of his interrogation, and added that he had personally informed the applicant of their content before he signed them.
34.  More than a dozen witnesses were subsequently heard before the Municipal Court, some of whom confirmed that they had “bought merchandise” from the applicant. Witness R.K. further stated, inter alia, that in August of 2005 he had seen several persons fleeing a crime scene in a red car.
35.  Witness L.K., however, stated that the police had beaten him with a baseball bat in order to force him to confess to a number of crimes, as well as to incriminate the applicant. In support of this allegation he provided the Municipal Court with a copy of a medical certificate documenting his injuries of 18 August 2005.
36.  Witness Đ.D. stated that he had accompanied the applicant from the police station to the hospital, on which occasion he had seen that the applicant had been injured and had been “walking with a limp” (see paragraphs 8 and 31 above).
37.  Witness N.D. stated that he had been invited by the police to act as the applicant’s legal aid lawyer on 18 August 2005. Prior to the interrogation, he had had a conversation with the applicant who had informed him that he had already retained legal counsel. The applicant was nevertheless willing to accept N.D. as his lawyer on that occasion only and in order to be released (da idem odavde). The applicant then confessed, in some detail, to the crimes in question. N.D. admitted that he had not inspected the case-file since the applicant had refused to communicate with him as regards the substance of the charges at issue, re-affirming that he had already retained a lawyer for this purpose. N.D. added that the applicant had had no visible injuries at that time, and that he had warned the applicant that the confession given to the police would be used as evidence against him. Officer M.V. interrogated the applicant. He did so by posing questions concerning specific places, burglaries and stores. N.D. lastly noted that he had not seen in his 33 years of practice a confession such as the applicant’s, and had therefore asked the applicant whether he was “protecting anyone”. The applicant had maintained that he was not.
38.  Witness M.D. denied any connection to the applicant, but stated that he too had been physically abused by the police on a number of occasions. M.D. also provided a medical certificate in this regard.
39.  On 22 March 2006 the Municipal Court decided to exclude the applicant’s statement of 18 August 2005 from the case file. It explained, inter alia, that there was indeed evidence to the effect that the applicant had been repeatedly arrested without having first been properly summoned which, in and of itself, indicated a sort of police harassment aimed at obtaining his confession. Further, there was no doubt that the applicant had chosen V.J.Đ. as his legal counsel and had never revoked this authorisation. The police, nevertheless, questioned the applicant in his chosen counsel’s absence, and appointed a legal aid lawyer for no apparent reason.
40.  On 4 April 2006 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Subotica quashed this decision and declared the applicant’s statement of 18 August 2005 legally valid. It noted that, as indicated in the minutes of the same date, the applicant had specifically said that he did not want V.J.Đ. to act as his legal counsel. The issue of whether the applicant was duly summoned was irrelevant, and the conditions for the appointment of a legal aid lawyer were clearly fulfilled. The applicant was also properly advised of his procedural rights.
41.  On 10 April 2006 officer Z.T. stated that on 8 August 2005 he had indentified a red car, which had apparently been seen leaving the crime scene, and had arrested the four or five persons whom he and his colleague had found in or around it. These persons were subsequently taken by other officers to the police station.
42.  On 13 April 2006 the Municipal Court heard the parties’ closing arguments, found the applicant guilty of having, effectively, committed eleven burglaries, i.e. ten between 15 June 2005 and 7 August 2005 and one on 8 August 2005, and sentenced him to one and a half years’ imprisonment for a single crime of “extended burglary” (jedno produženo krivično delo teške krađe). The Municipal Court further observed that there were six separate criminal cases pending concurrently against the applicant and considered this as an aggravating circumstance in sentencing. The applicant’s detention was prolonged until the judgment in his case became final. The Municipal Court also noted that, in the meantime, it had already reviewed and extended the applicant’s detention on 16 September 2005, 13 October 2005, 12 September 2005 and 14 February 2006, and that each time its decisions had been confirmed by the District Court on appeal. As regards the applicant’s conviction concerning the burglaries committed between 15 June 2005 and 7 August 2005, the Municipal Court took note of the applicant’s confession of 18 August 2005, recalled that he had been found in possession of stolen property, and emphasised that several witnesses had confirmed that they had bought such property from the applicant. Concerning the burglary of 8 August 2005 the Municipal Court relied on the applicant’s confession of the same date and the statements given by witnesses R.K and Z.T. Testimony indicating that certain witnesses had been ill-treated by the police in order to incriminate the applicant was either dismissed as irrelevant or simply ignored.
43.  On 23 May 2006 the Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office lodged an appeal, seeking a harsher sentence.
44.  On 29 May 2006 and 7 June 2006 V.J.Đ. filed an appeal on behalf of the applicant, noting, inter alia, that: (i) his statement of 18 August 2005 had been obtained as a result of police brutality and in the absence of his chosen counsel, there being no other evidence which could have warranted a conviction; (ii) the police-appointed lawyer had never offered any genuine legal representation to the applicant and had instead been there to assist the police in their interrogation; (iii) the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment had simply been ignored by the Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office; (iv) the prison staff had not allowed the applicant free communication with his chosen counsel; (v) the six separate criminal proceedings which had been pending concurrently against the applicant could not lawfully have been taken into account as an aggravating circumstance, but that since they were this amounted to an implied breach of the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent.
45.  On 27 June 2006 the District Court rejected the appeals lodged by the parties.
46.  On 25 July 2006 V.J.Đ. filed an appeal on points of law (zahtev za vanredno ispitivanje zakonitosti pravosnažne presude) on behalf of the applicant, re-stating his submissions made earlier.
47.  On 15 November 2006, however, the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) rejected this appeal.
48.  On 23 February 2007, having served his sentence imposed by the Municipal Court, the applicant was released from the District Prison in Novi Sad.